Back
Cancels for Shiv Sena's Ramesh Mhatre Over Hospital Assault
In an extraordinary Saturday sitting, the swooped in to cancel the granted to Shiv Sena corporator Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre, who stands accused of brutally assaulting three doctors at a municipal hospital. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad took of what it termed “disturbing” news reports, stayed the Kalyan magistrate’s order, and directed Mhatre to surrender before the police by 5 p.m. on . The court minced no words in calling the order “” and lambasted the magistrate for ignoring Mhatre’s extensive and the gravity of the attack. At the same time, the judges appealed to the medical fraternity to abandon a planned state-wide strike, declaring that it would serve the larger interest of society.
The Incident That Sparked Outrage
The chain of events began on the night of at the Municipal Shastri Nagar Hospital in Dombivli, part of the . Doctors had advised the family of a pregnant woman to shift her to another facility because all Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) beds were occupied. Dissatisfied, the family allegedly contacted Ramesh Mhatre, a sitting corporator from the Eknath Shinde-led faction of the Shiv Sena who represents the Kopar ward. Mhatre, accompanied by four associates, then descended upon the hospital and allegedly assaulted three doctors in a display of fury. The attack left the medical community reeling, prompting the to threaten a state-wide strike from .
Mhatre and his accomplices were arrested and later moved for . In a move that would attract judicial censure, the Kalyan magistrate granted Mhatre on a bond of ₹50,000 on —barely a day after he was remanded to . The speed of the release, coupled with the complete absence of conditions safeguarding the investigation, stunned legal observers and sparked protests across Maharashtra.
A Order Riddled with Flaws
Before the magistrate, Mhatre’s counsel had argued that the corporator had been or in most of the 18 criminal cases registered against him over 36 years. He also cited health concerns—Mhatre reportedly has a single kidney and suffers from hypertension—and contended that his physical presence was not required. The magistrate accepted these submissions, releasing him the next day without imposing any condition requiring him to cooperate with the investigation or periodically report to the police.
The immediately identified a catalogue of procedural failings. The bench noted that the police had recorded only Mhatre’s first statement and desired to interrogate him further, but the magistrate’s contained no direction to that effect. “No condition is imposed on him by which his presence could be monitored by the probe agency,” the judges observed. Equally striking was the fact that Mhatre had been hospitalised at the Thane District Government Hospital while in custody but was the very moment was granted. “Till the was not granted, he was hospitalised, and the moment was granted, he became fit to be . That’s how it works,” the court remarked in a telling oral observation.
Suo Motu Intervention and Scathing Findings
Convening a special Saturday sitting on , the took of the case, initiating a titled and were appointed as , while and represented the State.
The bench was relentless in its criticism. It underscored that Mhatre had a history of 18 criminal cases, including some involving grave offences, and that the magistrate had completely overlooked these antecedents. “In a case where accused Mhatre led a mob of around four more persons and attacked three doctors in a municipal hospital, showing his fury against doctors in severely beating them up, could not have been taken lightly by the magistrate, more so in the backdrop of 18 offences registered against him in the past,” the court recorded. It added that “haphazard investigation was not expected” and that “grant of was unjustified.”
The court went on to note the broader repercussions: “Considering the overall impact of the conduct of Mhatre and the effect that his actions have had on the medical professionals, especially the doctors working in municipal and government hospitals and are employees of the state government, we do not find that the magistrate could have granted , considering the brutal assault he caused on the three doctors.” This recognition of the systemic chill felt by government doctors signalled the court’s sensitivity to the larger public interest.
Directions and Consequences
Exercising its , the High Court stayed the order dated and the subsequent , keeping them in until further orders. It also cancelled the granted to the four co‑accused. Mhatre was directed to surrender before the by 5 p.m. on . The bench added a sharp deterrent: if he fails to surrender or cannot be traced, the authorities are at liberty to follow to attach his immovable properties. Additionally, the police were ordered to preserve CCTV footage from the hospital between and , ensuring that crucial evidence remains intact.
The court did not stop at corrective action. It also addressed the fallout from the assault by appealing directly to the medical community. With an IMA‑backed strike looming less than a week away, the bench urged reconsideration. “We would appeal to all doctors in government and civic hospitals to reconsider their decision of commencing their strike on in the larger interest of the society and considering their service to mankind,” Acting Chief Justice Ghuge stated. In a further protective measure, the court directed that the resignation of the woman doctor who was assaulted—if tendered out of fear—should not be accepted by the civic hospital.
A Signal to Magistrates and a Reassurance to Doctors
The ’s swift and decisive intervention carries significant implications for criminal law practice. It reinforces the principle that orders must be reasoned, must consider , and must incorporate safeguards that ensure an effective investigation. The ruling also underscores that courts at all levels cannot afford to treat assaults on , particularly healthcare professionals, as minor infractions. The direct appeal to doctors, coupled with the order protecting the victim’s employment, reflects a nuanced judicial response that balances public health exigencies with the demand for accountability.
For legal professionals, the episode serves as a clear reminder that remain a potent tool when lower court decisions threaten to undermine the . The appointment of senior amici and the engagement of the Advocate General highlight the gravity with which the High Court viewed the matter. The case now stands adjourned to , where the bench is expected to examine the investigation’s progress and decide whether the should be made permanent.
In the interim, the message could not be clearer: granting to accused with a chequered past in cases involving violent attacks on doctors will attract the strictest scrutiny, and magistrates who fail to exercise due diligence risk having their orders swiftly overturned.
